1

Introduction

DEFINITION OF THE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH COMMUNITY

Since NASA’s founding charter was written to include “the expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space” as one of its eight objectives, the mysteries of our universe have been revealed regularly and systematically. Discoveries about our universe, our solar system, planets, the sun and stars and, of course the Earth, occur nearly every day, engaging and informing the world, sparking our collective imagination, and fueling even greater discovery.

The U.S. space, Earth, biological, and physical science research community, supported by the NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD), includes approximately 10,000 U.S. scientists across multiple disciplines, of which roughly 900 are NASA employees (NASA 2021a). The remainder are at federally funded research and development centers, universities, observatories, non-profit institutions, and industry. This community also influences and is influenced by the many engineers, technicians, and support personnel that are part of the space, Earth, biological and physical sciences enterprise. When this report refers to the NASA SMD research community, the committee took an expansive view of the scientists, researchers, engineers, technicians, and support personnel that constitute the workforce that is critical to achieving SMD’s goals and objectives.

This community is characterized by the broad reach of SMD funding. NASA SMD is the primary funding source for many of the space and Earth scientists and researchers in the form of grants and contracts. SMD funds more than 3,000 openly competed research awards with universities, industry, and government laboratories. SMD reports its extensive reach in its “Share the Science” website, with “54 balloon missions in development, 23 Earth-observing operating missions, 5 upcoming Earth system observatory missions, 2 launched sounding rockets with 45 science missions in development, 49 SmallSats/CubeSats science missions and 29 technology demos, with 114 missions from formulation through extended operations.”¹

THE OPPORTUNITY: SHAPING THE FUTURE OF THE SCIENCE AND RESEARCH COMMUNITY

Discovery in each science discipline is enabled by technology and instrument innovation, but more importantly, fueled by the energy and creativity of researchers, students, postdocs, scientists, data analysts, engineers,

___________________

¹ NASA, “Science by the Numbers,” NASA Science, https://science.nasa.gov, accessed March 3, 2022.

technicians, and support staff. Any discussion or study on the foundations of scientific endeavor must seriously address the people who comprise the community in question. This people-centered engine will power a future that includes progressively more complex orbiting spacecraft with expansive observing capabilities; discovery enabled by data, collection, and analysis at scales never before seen; and engaging a community of scientists, researchers, and experts pushing the limits of science and technology.

In assessing any process over time, the challenge is to observe, evaluate, adjust, and repeat. The method, or program of collecting data and using it to shape a community requires both metrics and process. Addressing programmatic incentives and disincentives will shape what’s possible. The elements of a healthy and vital community include quantitative metrics and demographics of the research community, positions, career status, etc. However, if a shift or change is desired, information on the organizational culture surrounding that community is also required, much of which is qualitative. Culture is evident in the vision, values and frameworks for the behaviors that prevail. Edgar Schein has captured these elements when he defines organizational culture as a set of underlying assumptions about an organization regarding what is valued, how people should behave, and beliefs about what is “normal” within the organization (Schein 1999, 2010). This statement captures the challenges of assessment and difficulty of measurement, particularly when considering the federated nature of the cultures at various institutions and organizations as success requires balancing elements of change associated with welcoming new entrants, shifting structure within those many cultures while continuing stellar science.

SMD is one of five NASA mission directorates. The other directorates are Exploration Systems Development, Space Operations, Aeronautics Research, and Space Technology. Although diverse in their charters, there is an overall NASA culture that makes it difficult to completely separate observations, findings, and recommendations for SMD from those of NASA overall when addressing a healthy and vibrant science community. For clarity, this report will refer to the Science Mission Directorate as “SMD” when discussing space, Earth, biological and physical sciences and “NASA” when referring to the agency as a whole. Because NASA maintains many controls, organizational elements and policies at the overall agency level, some subjects will require referencing findings and observations at both the SMD and NASA levels.

SMD sponsors research in five principal areas: astronomy and astrophysics, planetary science, Earth science, heliophysics, and biological (“life sciences”) and physical sciences. Biological and physical sciences have returned to SMD after decades residing in the Office of Biological and Physical Research and as part of human exploration organizations—for example, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD), Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD), etc., at NASA,^2,3 highlighting that each science area has its own history, culture, and unique science challenges.

SMD is the primary funding source, generator, and user of space science data. In some fields, like astronomy and astrophysics, significant funding is also provided by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Naval Research Laboratory, with additional private funding, primarily for ground-based observatories. In solar and space physics, substantial funding is provided by NSF, the Air Force, and DOE. In Earth science, funding for the community of Earth scientists comes from many multiple sources, including other government agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NSF, DOE, the Department of

___________________

² The Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) was established in 2011 by combining the Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD) and the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) to optimize the elements, systems, and technologies after the retirement of the space shuttle and the cancellation of the Constellation moon program. ESMD was initially established in 2006 to develop the capabilities and supporting research to enable sustained and affordable human and robotic exploration, and to ensure the health and performance of crews during long-duration space exploration. The precursor SOMD was responsible for providing space exploration services, managed the safe flyout of the Space Shuttle Program and operation of the system and payloads on the International Space Station (ISS), the Launch Services Program and rocket testing capabilities. In 2021 NASA announced it was splitting HEOMD into two organizations similar to NASA’s earlier structure, the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate and Space Operations Mission Directorate. The former is responsible for programs linked to the Artemis lunar exploration initiative and future Mars exploration, while the latter handles the ISS and low Earth orbit commercialization.

³ The complex history of biological and physical sciences at NASA started with the life sciences program acknowledged by the Kety Committee in 1960 as a critical area needing focus beyond simply operational support for manned spaceflight. The multiple organizational constructs and funding levels of this critical science area reflect the varied perspectives of the role of the originally envisioned program office as well as differing perspectives of its relationship with human spaceflight programs. See NASA, “NASA History,” https://history.nasa.gov.

Defense (DoD), the Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Geological Survey to name a few, as well as spinoff technologies funded and developed in conjunction with the Science and Technology office of the Department of Homeland Security, like 3D sensing technologies developed for spacecraft applied to Earth applications, as well as private and even corporate funding in the natural resource industries. For biological and physical science research, funding sources include NSF, the National Institutes of Health, and DoD. Lastly, in planetary science, NASA SMD is the primary source of funding through grants and mission support and few other sources are available. Minor funding is provided through the NSF, administrative burden accounts, state funds and endowments (Porter et al. 2020).

STUDY CHARTER

This study has been prepared in response to a request from the associate administrator of the NASA SMD. The purposes of this study are

The Committee on the Foundation for Assessing the Health and Vitality of the NASA Science Mission Directorate’s Research Communities has sought to address the issues raised in the statement of task by consulting with outside experts and NASA officials and reviewing available research and relevant reports.

HOW TO READ THIS REPORT

This report consists of seven chapters. Chapter 1 is an introduction to NASA’s role in leading and shaping the research communities that conduct the Earth, space, biological and physical sciences. Chapter 2 focuses on identifying the characteristics of a healthy and vital research community. It establishes attributes or tenets that capture the needs of such a community. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 identify specific elements associated with the tenet themes: Assuring Strong Science and Research Priorities, Ensuring a Healthy People Enterprise, and Addressing Programmatic Issues, respectively. The “science priorities” chapter, Chapter 3, discusses critical science elements that impact the health of the community. The “people” chapter, Chapter 4, describes the scope of the community—actually multiple communities—that work at NASA centers, research institutions, universities, government agencies and elsewhere. Chapter 5, the “programmatics” chapter, discusses key structures to address measurement, analytics, and action. Chapter 6 discusses implementable measures for assessing the health and vitality of the research community. The chapter also provides recommendations on data that should be collected and how NASA can best make use of it. Finally, Chapter 7 discusses and prioritizes promising practices that NASA can implement to improve the health and vitality of its research communities. The committee acknowledges that there are many examples of practices from within NASA that the agency is already implementing with positive results.

The committee’s statement of task is included as Appendix A, a list of acronyms and abbreviations is included as Appendix B, and the committee biographies are included as Appendix C. The committee chose to include footnotes when it believed the reader would prefer easy access to citations or further information, but also collected an extensive reference list.